Chapter 29. The Vatican Council (1869-1870)

{279} IT is sometimes suggested that Newman's
line of action in 1869 and 1870 in connection with the Vatican Council
was an episode in his life which showed a certain deficiency in
whole-hearted loyalty to the Holy See, and were best forgotten by his
admirers. His letters show that he himself took a very different view
from this even after all the excitement of controversy had subsided. If
ever he acted against his inclinations and from a stern sense of duty it
was at this crisis. He had a full consciousness that many good but not
far-seeing people, whom he respected, would condemn his attitude. He was
opposing what was put forward as being the wish of a Pontiff whom he
especially loved and revered for his personal qualities even apart from
his sacred office. But throughout he believed himself to be defending
the interests of Catholic theology against extremists who were—without
realising the effects of their action—setting it aside. Like
Archbishop Sibour, he was pleading the cause of the immemorial
constitution of the Church against the innovations of advocates of a new
absolutism. An Ecumenical Council, according to Catholic theology,
involves genuine deliberation. He had been invited by the Pontiff
himself to contribute material towards this deliberation. He was
constantly consulted by Bishop Ullathorne, Bishop Clifford, Bishop
Dupanloup, and other prelates. He had then the call, in his own sphere,
to make a real contribution to the process of deliberation—that is to
say, to declare what his own judgment was, but with the full intention
of submitting to the Church when it had decided the matter. The Pope was
constantly approached with representations on behalf of one view of the
question: was it not only fair, reasonable, {280} and loyal to bring
before him and the Council the full force of another view held by many
of the Bishops themselves?

As we have seen, there were men of influence who were speaking as
though truth was to be directly revealed by the Holy Spirit to the
Council, and scientific theology, and deliberation with a view to
exactness of expression, were unimportant. Against this growing tendency
he entered his earnest protest by word and by deed. No doubt his protest
was regarded by men whose education was not equal to their piety as
showing a want of confidence in the Holy Spirit's guidance. So, too,
Silas Marner deemed it a want of faith to doubt that the Holy Spirit
would interfere by preternatural agencies to guide the decision by lot.
And when that decision turned out to be false he lost his faith in God.
Such is the Nemesis which follows the identification of God's guidance
with the beliefs of the superstitious as to its nature and degree. The
very fact that Newman's protest was objected to showed how necessary it
was, and how the commonplaces of theology were being practically
disregarded. He was but acting on the words he had himself written five
years earlier, in the 'Apologia,' on the determining factors in the
proceedings of Ecumenical Councils. The Fathers, he wrote, 'have been
guided in their decisions by the commanding genius of individuals,
sometimes young and of inferior rank. Not,' he added, 'that uninspired
intellect overruled the superhuman gift which was committed to the
Council, which would be a self-contradictory assertion, but that in that
process of enquiry and deliberation which ended in an infallible
enunciation individual effort was paramount.' He gave the instances of
Malchion, a mere presbyter, at the council of Antioch; of Athanasius, a
deacon, at Nicea; of Salmeron, a priest, at Trent. That he himself,
though a mere priest, should, when invited to contribute to the
theological deliberations preliminary to the Vatican Council, do his
best to make them real—that he should do something very different from
merely uncritically acquiescing in the treatment of a definition of
doctrine which involved a statement of historical fact, as though it
were, in his own words, 'a luxury of devotion'—was, then, to be true
to Catholic practice in the past in the face of dangerous innovation.
{281} And, moreover, while the principle of full deliberation was the
tradition in possession, it was also more than ever necessary now when
historical criticism was so rapidly gaining in accuracy, and so many
acute and jealous eyes would test and criticise the proceedings of the
Council.

For a moment he had hesitated whether he should not accept the
invitation of the Holy Father and Monsignor Dupanloup to attend at Rome
in person for the theological conferences in which the schemata
of the Council were to be prepared. But in the event he had declined.

'Don't be annoyed,' he wrote to Sister Maria Pia on February 10,
1869. 'I am more happy as I am, than in any other way. I can't bear the
kind of trouble which I should have, if I were brought forward in any
public way. Recollect, I could not be in the Council, unless I
were a Bishop—and really and truly I am not a theologian. A
theologian is one who has mastered theology—who can say how many
opinions there are on every point, what authors have taken which, and
which is the best—who can discriminate exactly between proposition and
proposition, argument and argument, who can pronounce which are safe,
which allowable, which dangerous—who can trace the history of
doctrines in successive centuries, and apply the principles of former times
to the conditions of the present. This it is to be a theologian—this
and a hundred things besides—which I am not, and never shall be. Like
St. Gregory Nazianzen, I like going on my own way, and having my time my
own, living without pomp or state, or pressing engagements. Put me into
official garb, and I am worth nothing; leave me to myself, and every now
and then I shall do something. Dress me up, and you will soon have to
make my shroud—leave me alone, and I shall live the appointed time.

'Now do take this in, as a sensible nun.'

However, while declining an official position, such aid as he could
give by correspondence with individual Bishops he was ready and anxious
to afford.

There were two doctrines of the utmost delicacy which the Council
proposed to treat—the Inspiration of Scripture and Papal
Infallibility. To treat them with a full knowledge of the facts relevant
to their accurate interpretation and exposition, so that the world
should see that the definitions {282} were entirely consistent with the
historical and physical science of the day, needed full and careful
deliberation.

His greatest anxiety, of course, related to the proposed definition
of Papal Infallibility. It appeared to him that the untheological school
were trying to force a strong definition secretly, without due
discussion, without facing the historical facts with which it must be
reconciled—seeking mainly to express their devotional beliefs, and in
doing so perhaps rendering an effective defence of the doctrine most
difficult for Catholics in the future. His cry was in effect 'Stop this
post-haste movement and give us time.' He considered that imperiousness
and unfairness marked the proceedings of some of the most energetic
promoters of the definition. To write at length on so wide a subject
would need on his part long and laborious scientific investigation. For
this no time was given. He could only cry out, and try and arouse the
Bishops to a sense of the danger. He communicated with many of them
privately. This was within the clear limit of his locus standi,
for they asked his opinion. He seems to have hesitated as to the
allowableness of writing publicly. But anyhow there was no time to write
with any effect.

Before taking in order the events of the months preceding the
definition, it may be well to give a few extracts from letters written
in their course which illustrate the above account of his habitual
feeling. When portions of a letter to Bishop Ullathorne in which he
strongly criticised some of the promoters of the definition afterwards
found their way into the newspapers, Father Coleridge urged him to write
a pamphlet designed for the public. Newman thus replied:

'Of course a pamphlet would have been far better than such a letter,
but I was distinctly dissuaded from publishing; and then I asked myself
this question—"Can anything I say move a single Bishop? And if
not, what is the good of writing?" And this is the great charge
which I bring against the immediate authors of this movement, that
they have not given us time. Why must we be hurried all of a sudden,
to write or not to write? Why is a coup de main to settle the
matter before we know where we are? What could such as I do, but
cry out, bawl, make violent gestures, as you would do, if you saw a
railway engine running over some unhappy workman on the line? What time
was there {283} for being scientific? What could you do but collar a
Bishop, if you could get up to one? The beginning and end of my thoughts
about the Council is: "You are going too fast, you are going too
fast."

The extreme party were, Newman held, playing into the hands of the
Church's enemies, who desired a definition which should be a reductio
ad absurdum of Papal claims. The gradual spread of Catholic
doctrines in England, of late years so promising, would, he feared,
inevitably be checked if it should be passed. He wrote to Mr. Brownlow,
contrasting the circumstances of this impending definition with those of
the definition of 1854:

'As to the Immaculate Conception, by contrast there was nothing
sudden, or secret, in the proposal of definition in that case. It had
been talked about years out of mind—and was approached, every one
knowing it, by step after step. This has taken us all by surprise.

'The Protestant and Infidel Press, so far from taking part with Mgr.
Dupanloup, have backed up all along the extreme party—and now all
through the country are taking an argumentative position against me.

'The existing Ritualists may or may not be put back—but the
leavening of the country will be checked.'

'It is very pleasant to me,' he wrote to Canon Walker, 'to find you
have hopes of the Council abstaining in a matter on which, I fear, the
Pope has set his heart. What I dread is haste—if full time is
given for the Synodal Fathers to learn and reflect on the state of the
case, I have little doubt they will keep clear of the dangerous points.'

To Mrs. F. Ward he wrote thus:

'This is certainly a most anxious time of suspense ... Councils have
ever been times of great trial—and this seems likely to be no
exception. It was always held that the conduct of individuals who
composed them was no measure of the authority of their result. We are
sure, as in the case of the administration of the Sacraments, that the
holiness of actors in them is not a necessary condition of God's working
by means of them. Nothing can be worse than the conduct of many in and
out of the Council who are taking the side which is likely to prevail.'

Two more extracts bring before us another side of his view. He
regarded Archbishop Manning's unceasing {284} advocacy of the definition
as a kind of fixed idea, characteristic of his occasionally mystical and
apocalyptic way of writing and thinking. Such a manner of looking at
things did not inspire Newman with confidence.

'I don't think Dr. Manning has put on any "spectacles,"' he
wrote to Canon Jenkins. 'He says what he thinks, and knows what he is
about. I cannot help thinking he holds that the world is soon coming to
an end—and that he is in consequence careless about the souls of
future generations which will never be brought into being. I can fancy a
person thinking it a grand termination (I don't mean that he so thinks)
to destroy every ecclesiastical power but the Pope and let Protestants
shift for themselves.'

On the other hand, while the enforcement of strict views was in such
a one as Manning a congenial indulgence, Newman foresaw results of the
general policy which was being pursued quite opposite to the intention
of those who pursued it. Their object was to bring free-lances into
line. Newman held that the general policy of narrowing the terms of
communion would have in many cases—and indeed had actually had—just
the opposite effect. Acute minds which if allowed a reasonable freedom
might be kept within due limits, would run to really unallowable
excesses in their angry reaction against what they held to be tyranny.
Mr. Ffoulkes was writing indignantly against the Council. Acton and
Wetherell were using language in the North British Review of
which Newman could not approve. People were saying to Newman—'Here are
your friends of the Home and Foreign—see what they are writing!
Were we not indeed justified in checking them and in censuring the
Review?' Newman held just the opposite—that excesses were not
necessarily the index of an attitude which existed from the first, but
embodied a reaction and protest, indefensible but natural, against
tyrannous repression. And, while disapproving of the actors in this
protest, their excesses had or might prove to have (he seems to have
thought) good consequences in bringing home to those in authority the
danger of drawing the reins too tight.

'There are those,' he wrote to Mrs. Froude, 'who have been taking
matters with a very high hand and with much of silent intrigue for a
considerable time, and such ways of going {285} on bring with them their
retribution. This does not defend the actors in that retribution.
Ffoulkes is behaving very ill—but he is the "Nemesis," as
they call it, of a policy, which I cannot admire. Nor do I like the new North
British—but it too is the retributive consequence of tyranny. All
will work for good; and, if we keep quiet, Providence will fight for us,
and set things right.' [Note 1]

Early in the year 1869 Newman received some confirmation of his fears
that an exaggerated and untheological view of the nature of Papal
Infallibility was current in highest quarters. Sir John Simeon forwarded
to Newman some notes received from Mr. Odo Russell, at that time British
Minister in Rome, of a conversation with Cardinal Antonelli on April 23,
in which the Cardinal was represented as taking the exaggerated view in
question. Would the Council (Newman asked himself), if it passed the
{286} definition, appear to the world to endorse such an extravagant
view? Here was a matter for most grave anxiety.

Bishop Dupanloup and very many French and German prelates shared
Newman's anxiety. Archbishop Manning, on the other hand, issued pastoral
after pastoral in favour of the definition, and W. G. Ward in the course
of the year published his pamphlet 'De Infallibilitatis Extensione,'
which, being in Latin, was widely read by foreign theologians as well as
English. Dupanloup, in a letter to his clergy issued in November,
attacked both Manning and Ward. Echoing the complaint of the Jesuit
Père Daniel in France, and of Father Ryder in England, he deprecated
the fact that 'intemperate journalists' insisted on 'opening debates on
one of the most delicate subjects and answering beforehand in what sense
the Council would decide and should decide.' 'The public mind thus
became filled with an extravagant idea of what Papal Infallibility
meant; and the definition was inopportune because it would be
misunderstood.

In respect of Mr. Ward's special share in the controversy, the Bishop
strongly censured his contention that the Pontiff may speak infallibly
in letters addressed, not to the whole Church, but to an individual
Bishop.

Again, Ward had ascribed infallibility to a number of documents on
the ground that they contained condemnations reproduced by the Syllabus,
and he maintained that all Catholics were bound to believe this.
Afterwards, in deference to the opinion of Roman theologians, as we have
already seen, he retracted this assertion. Dupanloup at once seized on
the retractation. If even a theological expert like Ward could make such
a mistake, how much more could others! What an argument for leaving so
subtle a question to time, and to the safer process of discussion among
theologians, whose ultimate decision would have the advantage of the
fullest consideration of pros and cons! What a proof that a true view of
Papal Infallibility was inseparable from the constitutional methods
habitually employed! The Pope was indeed infallible; but the exact
knowledge of what he taught infallibly, and when he taught infallibly,
came to the faithful, in the cases which his own words might well leave
doubtful, {287} not through the rapid private judgment of an individual,
however able, or of a single public writer for his readers, but through
the gradual operation of the learning and knowledge of the Church as a
whole.

Here, then, Dupanloup [Note 2]
noted, what Cardinal Newman has so constantly pointed out, the functions
of the Church, as represented by the Bishops and the theological school,
in determining the force and interpreting the meaning of Papal
declarations, as well as in assisting the Pope in the deliberations
preparatory to definitions—functions so strangely ignored or minimised
by the extreme party. Many of the Infallibilists appeared to be in the
same position as some supporters of the majority at the Council of
Ephesus. These men, in their zeal against the Nestorians, who denied
that Jesus Christ was a Divine Person, fell into the opposite error of
denying that He had a human soul and human nature. They became the
founders of the Monophysite heresy.

Newman's fears persisted up to the time of the definition itself. The
accredited organs of Rome, the Civilità Cattolica at their head,
used language which foreshadowed some such definition as could seem
called for only to satisfy the extravagant devotional feeling towards
the Papacy, of which some exhibitions have been cited above from the
columns of the Univers. Newman was in frequent correspondence
with Bishop Ullathorne, and wrote him a letter in January 1870, in which
he expressed fully his feelings of dismay and indignation. The letter
ran as follows:

Private.
January 28th, 1870.
'My dear Lord,—I thank your Lordship very heartily for your most
interesting and seasonable letter. Such letters (if they could be
circulated) would do much to reassure the many minds which are at
present disturbed when they look towards Rome. Rome ought to be a name
to lighten the heart at all times, and a Council's proper office is,
when some great heresy or other evil impends, to inspire the faithful
with hope and confidence. But now we have the greatest meeting which has
ever been, and that in Rome, infusing into us by the accredited organs
of Rome (such as the Civilità, the Armonia, the Univers,
and the Tablet) little else than fear {288} and dismay. Where we are
all at rest and have no doubts, and, at least practically, not to say
doctrinally, hold the Holy Father to be infallible, suddenly there is
thunder in the clear sky, and we are told to prepare for something, we
know not what, to try our faith, we know not how. No impending danger is
to be averted, but a great difficulty is to be created. Is this the
proper work for an Ecumenical Council? As to myself personally, please
God, I do not expect any trial at all, but I cannot help suffering with
the various souls that are suffering. I look with anxiety at the
prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult to my
private judgment, but may be most difficult to defend logically in the
face of historical facts. What have we done to be treated as the
Faithful never were treated before? When has definition of doctrine de
fide been a luxury of devotion and not a stern painful necessity?
Why should an aggressive and insolent faction be allowed to make the
hearts of the just to mourn whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful? Why
can't we be let alone when we have pursued peace and thought no evil? I
assure you, my dear Lord, some of the truest minds are driven one way
and another, and do not know where to rest their feet; one day
determining to give up all theology as a bad job and recklessly to
believe henceforth almost that the Pope is impeccable; at another
tempted to believe all the worst that a book like Janus says; at another
doubting about the capacity possessed by Bishops drawn from all corners
of the earth to judge what is fitting for European society, and then
again angry with the Holy See for listening to the flattery of a clique
of Jesuits, Redemptorists and Converts. Then again think of the score of
Pontifical scandals in the history of eighteen centuries which have
partly been poured out, and partly are still to come out. What Murphy
inflicted upon us in one way, M. Veuillot is indirectly bringing on us
in another. And then again the blight which is falling upon the
multitude of Anglican ritualists, who themselves perhaps, or at least
their leaders, may never become Catholics, but who are leavening the
various English parties and denominations (far beyond their own range)
with principles and sentiments tending towards their ultimate adoption
into the Catholic Church.

'With these thoughts before me, I am continually asking myself
whether I ought not to make my feelings public; but all I do is to pray
those great early Doctors of the Church, whose intercession would decide
the matter,—Augustine and the rest,—to avert so great a calamity. If
it is God's Will {289} that the Pope's Infallibility should be defined,
then it is His Blessed Will to throw back the times and the moments of
that triumph He has destined for His Kingdom; and I shall feel I have
but to bow my head to His Adorable Inscrutable Providence. You have not
touched on the subject yourself, but I think you will allow me to
express to you feelings which for the most part I keep to myself.
'JOHN H. NEWMAN.'

In the course of March, extracts from this letter found their way
into the Standard newspaper—how they became public is not
known. The passage in which the words 'aggressive and insolent faction'
occur was printed. Newman wrote to the Standard denying that he
had used the words, insisting that the letter was a private one, yet not
disclaiming its sentiments.

He wrote at the same time to Dr. Moriarty, Bishop of Kerry, an active
opponent of the definition, in much the same sense as he had written to
Dr. Ullathorne:

'The Oratory: March 20th, 1870.
'My dear Lord,—I am continually thinking of you and your cause. I look
upon you as the special band of confessors, who are doing God's work at
this time in a grave crisis; who, I trust, will succeed in your effort,
but who cannot really fail—both because you are at the very least
diminishing the nature and weight of the blow which is intended by those
whom you oppose, and also because your resistance must bear fruit
afterwards, even though it fails at the moment. If it be God's will that
some definition in favour of the Pope's infallibility is passed, I then
should at once submit—but up to that very moment I shall pray most
heartily and earnestly against it. Any how, I cannot bear to think of
the tyrannousness and cruelty of its advocates—for tyrannousness and
cruelty it will be, though it is successful ...

'The Standard has been saying that I have written to Bp. of
Birmingham at Rome, speaking of the advocates of Papal Infallibility as
an "insolent aggressive faction"—this I certainly have not
done—though I do in my heart think some advocates, e.g. the Univers,
insolent and aggressive. Certainly I do. Think of the way in which the
French Bishops have been treated. I wrote to Dr. Ullathorne last Monday,
feeling, that, though I had not used those words, yet the person who
wrote the Standard word about me certainly {290} had seen my
letter to him. Here no one knew anything of what I said to the
Bishop but Fr. St. John—and both he and I have kept a dead silence
about it all along.

'I don't give up hope, till the very end, the bitter end; and am
always praying about it to the great doctors of the Church. Anyhow, we
shall owe you and others a great debt.
'My dear Lord
Ever yours affecly in Xt,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.'

Sir John Simeon had seen a copy of the letter to Dr. Ullathorne in
which the words 'aggressive and insolent faction' did occur, and wrote
to Newman at once to say so.

On receiving his letter, Newman again looked at the rough copy of his
letter to Dr. Ullathorne, and found that the words in question, which he
had overlooked, were really there. He at once wrote to Simeon:

'Before writing to the Standard I referred to it, and could
not find the words in question then.

'Since your letter has come, I have referred again to it, and I have
found them.

'I can only account for my not having seen them the first time, by
the letter being written very badly and interlined.

'Of course I must write to the Standard, but I must take care
how I pick my way or I shall tumble into the mud.
'Ever yours affectionately,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.'

The following letter from Dr. Newman appeared in the Standard
of the following day:

'Sir,—In answer to the letter of "The Writer of 'the Progress
of the Council,'" I am obliged to say that he is right, and I am
wrong as to my using the words "insolent and aggressive
faction" in a letter which I wrote to Bishop Ullathorne. I write to
make my apologies to him for contradicting him.

'I kept the rough copy of this private letter of mine to the Bishop,
and on reading the writer's original statement I referred to it and did
not find there the words in question.

'This morning a friend has written to tell me that there are copies
of the letter in London, and that the words {291} certainly are in it.
On this I have looked at my copy a second time, and I must confess that
I have found them.

'I can only account for my not seeing them the first time by my very
strong impression that I had not used them in my letter, confidential as
it was, and from the circumstance that the rough copy is badly written
and interlined.

'I learn this morning from Rome that Dr. Ullathorne was no party to
its circulation.

'I will only add that when I spoke of a faction I neither meant that
great body of Bishops who are said to be in favour of the definition of
the doctrine nor any ecclesiastical order or society external to the
Council. As to the Jesuits, I wish distinctly to state that I have all
along separated them in my mind, as a body, from the movement which I so
much deplore. What I meant by a faction, as the letter itself shows, was
a collection of persons drawn together from various ranks and conditions
in the Church.
'I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.
'March 22nd.'

The following letter to Sir John Simeon shows that Newman was on the
whole glad that his sentiments had been made public without any
responsibility on his own part for the fact:

'The Oratory: March 27th, 1870.
'My dear Sir John,—As my confidential letter to the Bishop shows, I
have been anxious for some time that an opportunity of speaking out,
which I could not make myself, should be made for me.

'I could not make it myself, for, as I said to you before, I am bound
to act in my own place as a priest under authority, and there was no
call for my going out of it.

'One thing I could do without impropriety—liberare animam meam—to
my Bishop, and that I did. I did so with great deliberation in one of
the most private and confidential letters I ever wrote in my life.

'I am glad I have done it, and moreover, I am not sorry that, without
any responsibility of my own, which I could not lawfully bring on me,
the general drift of what I wrote has been published.

'Everything hitherto has happened well. It was very lucky that I was
so firmly persuaded I did not use in the letter the words imputed to me.
My persuasion being such I felt it to be a simple duty to disown them;
and I could {292} not in fairness disown them, without avowing at the
same time, as I did in my letter to the Standard, that, though I
did not use the words, I thought them in my heart. If I had recognised
my own words from the first, I should have had no opportunity of
explaining their meaning, or against whom they were directed. My two
letters to the Standard have given me two such opportunities.

'Now, however, this is done; and I feel quite easy, and need do
nothing more.

'There were two reasons which might be urged upon me for making my
views known, viz.—in order that they might act as a means of
influencing some of the Bishops in the Council, and as a protest against
the action of a certain party. What I have already done, is all that I
can, all that I need do. Would anything more on my part move a single
Bishop? Would anything more make my mind on the matter more intelligible
to the world? I think not.

'I will add one thing. I do not at all anticipate any ultimate
dissension. Like a jury, they will sit till they agree. I have full
confidence in the French and German Bishops.
'Ever yours affectionately,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.

'P.S.—Certainly I rejoice to hear from you that an Address
protesting against the definition of Infallibility would, if started, be
largely signed: but what have I to do with such measures, beyond giving
my opinion, which I have done?'

Newman did, however, take one further step, and published the whole
of the letter of which the Standard had printed extracts. He
refers to its publication in a letter to Mr. de Lisle:

'My dear Mr. de Lisle,— ... I am in somewhat of a mess as you may
see from the papers. I sent to our Bishop, Dr. Ullathorne, at Rome, one
of the most confidential letters that I ever wrote in my life—and,
without his fault, it got out and was shown about Rome. Then, I still
unconscious of the mishap, it travelled to London, and, after
circulating pretty freely, bits of it got into the papers. Meanwhile, it
got to Germany, and there again other bits were published, and not
fairly given, though without bad intention, but from the natural
inaccuracy which attends on reports, when they have passed through
several minds in succession. And then at length the whole of it, in its
length and breadth, has got published at last. {293}

'I trust it has thus wriggled into public knowledge, for some good
purpose—though I cannot tell how this will be. If it leads to some
counter demonstration, it will be very sad. I wish there was a chance of
a strong lay petition to our Bishops to beg them to use their influence
at Rome to let matters alone. But this, I fear, you will pronounce to be
impossible.

'Anxious as I am, I will not believe that the Pope's Infallibility
can be defined at the Council till I see it actually done. Seeing is
believing. We are in God's Hands—not in the hands of men, however
high-exalted. Man proposes, God disposes. When it is actually done, I
will accept it as His act; but, till then, I will believe it impossible.
One can but act according to one's best light. Certainly, we at least
have no claim to call ourselves infallible; still it is our duty to act
as if we were, to act as strongly and vigorously in the matter, as if it
were impossible we could be wrong, to be full of hope and of peace, and
to leave the event to God. This is right, isn't it?
'Most sincerely yours,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.'

The end of May saw the Canons of the Council on the first of the two
subjects which caused Newman anxiety—the inspiration of Scripture.
From a letter to Father Coleridge it would seem that these Canons
realised Newman's anticipations. He had no difficulty in accepting them.
But he felt that they were drawn up with no adequate regard to the
urgent questions which were being raised by contemporary Biblical
criticism. This he evidently deeply regretted. The consequence was that
difficulties which the theologians had not anticipated in framing the
Canons would have to be taken into account in their interpretation.
Eventually no doubt theological explanation would give them an
interpretation in some respects different from what appeared to him
their prima facie sense. But this must be a matter of time. And
meanwhile he anticipated great difficulties. The Fathers of the Council
had not—so he was credibly informed—intended to make untenable the
views of certain approved theologians which had not apparently been
taken into account in the wording of the Canons. If this were the case
the fact would have to be made clear to hostile critics. It is worth
while to remark that the chief point which Newman in his first letter
wishes to see expressly {294} allowed for—the use by Moses of
pre-existing documents—is in our own day fully admitted by most
theologians. But Newman evidently wished that at this critical moment
such considerations should have been dealt with by full theological
discussion. A freer and more open debate would have forestalled
objections which, as things were, the keener-sighted Catholic thinkers
might have to answer by qualifying the apparent meaning of the words of
the Canons.

The very important letter of which I speak ran as follows:

'The Oratory: June 7, 1870.
'I have my doubts whether, humanly speaking, those Canons &c. would
ever have been pressed in their actual wording, if things had not been
kept so strangely snug from first to last. The Pope and the Bishops seem
to have left everything to the Holy Ghost.

'Speaking under correction, there are two new dogmas in what has been
defined about Scripture—1st that Scripture is inspired. In the
decree of Trent the Apostles are declared to be inspired, and
they, thus inspired, are the fountain head both tradition and of
Scripture. Bouvier, I think, says that the inspiration in Scripture is
not defined, though it is certissimum. 2nd that by the Testamenta
is meant, not the Covenants, but the collection of books constituting
the Bible; of which in consequence as well as of the Covenants,
God becomes the "Auctor."

'St. Irenæus, writing against the Gnostics, who denied the Jewish
Dispensation to be the work of God, says that God was the Auctor
Testamenti Veteris, of which testaments he numbers in one place (I
think) five. When the Priscillians made a row in Spain, the Spanish
Bishops against them read the same formula. Then in the Middle Ages,
against the Manichean Gnostics, Albigenses &c.—the same formula
was used. Thence it came to Florence. Mind, I am writing from memory,
but thus my memory runs.

'When I heard the Canons had been passed—no, it was when I saw from
the Papers that they were threatened,—I, at once, wrote
to a Bishop at Berne, saying what I have said above—but it was too
late. One says God's will be done. He is wiser than man—but I cannot
think that full deliberation has been had upon the subject—which is
necessary, not for the validity of the decree but for the relief of the
responsibility of those who so passed it. On such important questions
why should not all sides be considered and reviewed? {295}

'My friend wrote me back word that he was sure that the Fathers of
the Council never meant to exclude the views Lessius, but
their words are very like exclusion. Can I now hold that Moses by
inspiration selected and put together the various pre-existing documents
which constitute the book Genesis? Are the genealogies all of them
inspired? for are they not "partes" of Scripture?

'It seems to me that a perfectly new platform of doctrine is created,
as regards our view of Scripture, by these new Canons—so far as this,
that, if their primary and surface meaning is to be evaded, it must be
by a set of explanations heretofore not necessary.

'Indeed the whole Church platform seems to me likely to be off its
ancient moorings, it is like a ship which has swung round or taken up a
new position ...
'Ever yours affectionately,
JOHN .H. NEWMAN.'

The question of Inspiration having been dealt with, there remained
the all-important one of Papal Infallibility. And Newman continued to
pray and hope that the definition might be averted. The late Lord Emly,
who often conversed with him on the subject, told the present writer
that Newman's main objection throughout was not to a definition
on the subject, but to such a definition as was likely to be passed in
the haste in which matters were proceeding and to exaggerations of its
import which extremists were likely to propagate. It was this anxiety
which led him to pray earnestly that for the present at least no
definition should be passed. Newman wrote in April to Dr. Whitty, who
was in Rome:

'Confidential.
April 12th, 1870.
'My dear Fr. Whitty,—Thank you for your letter, which I was very glad
to have. I will write to you as frankly as you have written to me; and
tho' the letter is "confidential," still you are the judge,
should you wish to extend that confidence beyond yourself.

'One can but go by one's best light. Whoever is infallible, I am not;
but I am bound to argue out the matter and to act as if I were, till the
Council decides; and then, if God's Infallibility is against me, to
submit at once, still not repenting of having taken the part which I
felt to be right, any more than a lawyer in Court may repent of
believing in a cause and advocating a point of law, which the Bench of
Judges ultimately give against him. We can but do our best. {296}

'Well, then, my thesis is this:—you are going too fast at Rome;—on
this I shall insist.

'It is enough for one Pope to have passed one doctrine (on the Immac.
Concept.) into the list of dogmata. We do not move at railroad pace in
theological matters, even in the 19th century. We must be patient, and
that for two reasons:—first, in order to get at the truth ourselves,
and next in order to carry others with us.

'1. The Church moves as a whole; it is not a mere philosophy, it is a
communion; it not only discovers, but it teaches; it is bound to consult
for charity as well as for faith. You must prepare men's minds for the
doctrine, and you must not flout and insult the existing tradition of
countries. The tradition of Ireland, the tradition of England, is not on
the side of Papal Infallibility. You know how recent Ultramontane views
are in both countries; so too of France; so of Germany. The time may
come when it will be seen how those traditions are compatible with
additions, that is, with true developments, which those traditions
indeed in themselves do not explicitly teach; but you have no right
rudely to wipe out the history of centuries, and to substitute a bran
new view of the doctrine imported from Rome and the South. Think how
slowly and cautiously you proceeded in the definition of the Immac.
Concept., how many steps were made, how many centuries passed, before
the dogma was ripe;—we are not ripe yet for the Pope's Infallibility.
Hardly anyone even murmured at the act of 1854; half the Catholic world
is in a fright at the proposed act of 1870.

'When indeed I think of the contrast presented to us by what is done
now and what was done then, and what, as I have said, ought always to be
done, I declare, unless I were too old to be angry, I should be very
angry. The Bull convening the Council was issued with its definite
objects stated, dogma being only slightly mentioned as among those
objects, but not a word about the Pope's Infallibility. Through the
interval, up to the meeting of the Council, not a word was said to
enlighten the Bishops as to what they were to meet about. The Irish
Bishops, as I heard at the time, felt surprised at this; so did all, I
doubt not. Many or most had thought they were to meet to set right the
Canon Law. Then suddenly, just as they are meeting, it is let out that
the Pope's Infallibility is the great subject of definition, and the Civilità,
and other well-informed prints, say that it is to be carried by
acclamation! Then Archbishop Manning tells {297} (I believe) Mr. Odo
Russell that, unless the opposition can cut the throats of 500 Bishops,
the definition certainly will carried; and, moreover, that it has
long been intended! Long intended, and yet kept secret! Is this the
way the faithful ever were treated before? is this in any sort of sense
going by tradition? On hearing this, my memory went back to an old
saying, imputed to Monsignor Talbot, that what made the definition of
the Immac. Concept. so desirable and important was that it opened the
way to the definition of the Pope's Infallibility. Is it wonderful that
we should all be shocked? For myself, after meditating on such crooked
ways, I cannot help turning to Our Lord's terrible warning: "Væ
mundo a scandalis! Quisquis scandalizaverit unum ex his pusillis
credentibus in me, bonum est ei magis si circumdaretur mola asinaria
collo ejus, et in mare mitteretur."

'2. I say then you must take your time about a definition de fide,
for the sake of charity;—and now I say so again for the sake of truth;
for the very same caution, which is necessary for the sake of others, is
surely the divinely appointed human means of an infallible decision.
Consider how carefully the Immaculate Conception was worked out. Those
two words have been analysed, examined in their parts, and then
carefully explained;—the declarations and the intentions of Fathers,
Popes, and ecclesiastical writers on the point have been clearly made
out. It was this process that brought Catholic Schools into union about
it, while it secured the accuracy of each. Each had its own extreme
points eliminated, and they became one, because the truth to which they
converged was one. But now what is done as regards the seriously
practical doctrine at present in discussion? What we require, first of
all, and it is a work of years, is a careful consideration of the acts
of Councils, the deeds of Popes, the Bullarium. We need to try the
doctrine by facts, to see what it may mean, what it cannot mean, what it
must mean. We must try its future working by the past. And we need that
this should be done in the face of day, in course, in quiet, in various
schools and centres of thought, in controversy. This is a work of years.
This is the true way in which those who differ sift out the truth. On
the other hand, what do we actually see? Suddenly one or two works made
to order—(excuse me, I must speak out). Fr. Botalla writes a book—and,
when he finds a layman like Renouf speaks intemperately, then, instead
of {298} setting him an example of cool and careful investigation, he
speaks intemperately too, and answers him sharply, some say angrily.
"Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis!" Is this the
way to gain a blessing on a most momentous undertaking?

'3. One word more. To outsiders like me it would seem as if a grave
dogmatic question was being treated merely as move in ecclesiastical
politics. Indeed, what you say about its relation to the Syllabus
justifies me in so thinking. So grave a doctrine is but an accidental
means to an object of the particular year, 1864! a dogma is, so to say, dated,
as St. Athanasius says of the Arian creeds. I say "an accidental
means," for you surmise that, if the Syllabus had not been negative
in its form, the definition of the Pope's Infallibility would not have
been needed at present. I could say much, not about the Syllabus, but on
the unworthy way in which it has been treated by its professed
champions. But let us allow that it is right to sink the solemn
character of a dogma in a question of ecclesiastical expedience; regnante
Pio nono:—next, if so, I naturally ask whether such a degradation
answers its purpose. Am I bound to take my view of expedience from what
is thought expedient at Rome? May I not judge about expedience for
Catholics in England by what we see in England? Now the effect upon the
English people of the very attempt at definition hitherto does but
confirm one's worst apprehensions about it, for 1st. the ministry is
decidedly pro-Catholic. Gladstone would help the Irish Catholic
University if he could, but he has been obliged to declare in the House
that what is going on in Rome ties his hands. And 2ndly Mr. Newdegate
has gained his Committee to inquire into conventual establishments and
their property. These are the first fruits in England of even the very
agitation of this great anticipated expedient for strengthening the
Church. That agitation falls upon an existing anti-Catholic agitation
spreading through the English mind. Murphy is still lecturing against
priests and convents, and gaining over the classes who are now the
ultimate depository of political power, the constituency for
Parliamentary elections. And we, where we are bound, if we can, to
soothe the deep prejudices and feverish suspicions of the nation, we on
the contrary are to be forced, by measures determined on at Rome, to
blow upon this troubled sea with all the winds of Æolus, when Neptune
ought to raise his "placidum caput" above the waves. This is
what we need at least in England. And for England, of course, I speak.
{299}

'Excuse my freedom. I do not forget your two passages. Say everything
kind for me to your Bishop, unless he has returned home. I wrote to him
a day or two ago. You may open the letter if he is away. 'Ever yours
affly.
JOHN H. NEWMAN.'

Newman made no secret of his views, in writing, not only to intimate
friends, but to occasional correspondents. Mr. O'Neill Daunt had asked
his advice concerning a lady friend whose faith was greatly tried by the
prospect of the definition, and he thus replied:

'The Oratory: June 27th, 1870.
'As to the subject of your letter, I certainly think this agitation of
the Pope's Infallibility most unfortunate and ill-advised, and I shall
think so even if the Council decrees it, unless I am obliged to believe
that the Holy Ghost protects the Fathers from all inexpedient acts,
(which I do not see is anywhere promised) as well as guides them into
all the truth, as He certainly does. There are truths which are
inexpedient.

'As to your question, however, I think first that there is such a
thing as a "needless alarm." Do you recollect Cowper's poem
with that title? I often think of it and quote it, and especially
lately, since this agitation has commenced. Your friend should not take
it for granted that the Infallibility of the Pope will be carried. I am
not at all sure it will. For myself, I refuse to believe that it can be
carried, till it actually is. I think the great Doctors of the Church
will save us from a dogma which they did not hold themselves.

'Next, if anything is passed, it will be in so mild a form, as
practically to mean little or nothing. There is a report, which you
probably can substantiate better than I, that Cardinal Cullen said, when
he was in Dublin, at Easter, that "he thought the Pope would never
be able to use thedogma, in the shape it was to be
passed."

'Lastly, is your friend sure she understands the dogma, even
as Ultramontanes hold it? I very much doubt if she does. She should look
carefully to this. The Pope did not force on us the Immaculate
Conception. The whole Christendom wished it.' [Note
3]

Meanwhile the deliberations of the Council proceeded. {300} One party
pleaded for whole-hearted loyalty to the Pontiff. The other urged such
caution as the true interests of the Church and respect for its
traditions demanded. The contest was intensified, and the struggle of
motives complicated, by the simple and noble character of Pius IX. and
the charm his presence. In the graphic journal of Mr. Thomas Mozley,
intensely prejudiced as he was against the infallibilists, we see that
the appearance of Pio Nono ever touches his imagination and his heart.
The very tones of his voice were inspiring. 'Whenever the Pope himself,'
he writes, after one of the Church functions at which he was present,
'had either to intone or to give the first notes of the grand
sacramental hymns, his peculiarly cheery voice rang through the whole
church and woke a response from everybody within reach of it. The
reverence he aroused was so universal and hearty that I could almost
have fancied that there was a touch of mirth in it.' The gracious
presence of the Pontiff, his simple faith, conquered wherever he went.
His jokes were in everyone's mouth. Those who regarded the promoters of
the definition as fanatics of the deepest dye could not but undergo a
revulsion of feeling when they met the man who was in their eyes the
head of the party. Even the zeal of his most loyal followers would touch
his sense of humour: and when, after the definition was passed, many of
the Bishops who had voted for it stayed on week after week, living at
the Pope's expense, to rejoice over their victory, the Pontiff was both
amused and somewhat tried at this drain on his exchequer. With the usual
pinch of snuff and a twinkle in his eye, he is said to have remarked, 'Questi
infallibilisti mi faranno fallire.' To behold the Pope pray was, it used
to be said, to watch one who himself saw that world which others
know only by faith. Such was the man who in person made the appeal to
his Bishops to be loyal to God's Vicar and to despise the opinion of the
world. And he treated half-heartedness as to the definition as simply
and solely worldliness. It is hard to conceive a greater trial, of its
kind, than such men as Dr. Moriarty and Mgr. Dupanloup had to undergo in
resisting such appeals, and appearing to the Pontiff they so deeply
loved and reverenced to fail in their loyalty to him in his time of
trouble. {301}

I may cite one out of many pictures Mr. Mozley has left of the
activity and zeal of the great Pontiff at this time:

'The day reminds me once more of the enormous amount of work expected
from a Pope, and done diligently, faithfully, and cheerfully by this old
man in his seventy-eighth year. Yesterday he paid a long visit to the
Exposition, talking with the exhibitors, and having his jokes with all
about him. He has to give interviews to all these seven hundred bishops,
and, as the enemy says, to put a strong pressure on all who are
recommended to him for the application of the supreme torture. A great
deal has been said about his visits to the aged and invalid bishops
lodged and nursed in the canonical apartments attached to St. Peter's
...

'Other bishops, who have been disposed, or compelled by
circumstances, to adopt a neutral or a moderate line in the Council,
have found themselves sorely tried in a personal interview. They find it
vain to declare their devotion or their sincerity. His Holiness tells
them plainly they are not on his side; they are among his enemies; they
are damaging the good cause; their loyalty is not sound. It is enough
that they have signed what they should not, or not signed what they
ought. On the Roman system there is nothing wonderful in this personal
interference of the Head of the Church. What I most marvel at is that it
is all done by this old man, and that it is done with a success which
provokes the indignation of those who conceive their cause hurt by it.'

Newman, though at a distance from Rome, realised to the full the
charm of the Pontiff with whose policy he could not concur. Pius IX. had
ever touched his heart in their intercourse. He was wont to ascribe to
his character and presence much of the abatement among his countrymen of
anti-Catholic prejudice—and this in spite of the fact that Pio Nono's
recent line of action and his insistence on the Papal prerogatives were
calculated greatly to increase rather than to diminish the bigotry of
our countrymen. The man himself had that in him which was quite
irresistible.

'No one could, both by his words and deeds, offend [Englishmen]
more,' Newman wrote of him after his death. 'He claimed, he exercised,
larger powers than any other Pope ever did; he committed himself to
ecclesiastical acts bolder than those of any other Pope; his secular
policy {302} was especially distasteful to Englishmen; he had some near
him who put into print just that kind of gossip concerning him which
would put an Englishman's teeth on edge; lastly, he it was who, in the
very beginning of his reign, was the author of the very measure which
raised such a commotion among us; yet his personal presence was of a
kind that no one could withstand. I believe one special cause of the
abatement of the animosity felt towards us by our countrymen was the
series of tableaux, as I may call them, brought before them in
the newspapers, of his receptions of visitors in the Vatican.

'His misfortunes indeed had something to do with his popularity. The
whole world felt that he was shamefully used as regards his temporal
possessions; no foreign power had any right to seize upon his palaces,
churches, and other possessions, and the injustice showed him created a
wide interest in him; but the main cause of his popularity was the magic
of his presence, which was such as to dissipate and utterly destroy the
fog out of which the image of a Pope looms to the ordinary Englishman.
His uncompromising faith, his courage, the graceful intermingling in him
of the human and the divine, the humour, the wit, the playfulness with
which he tempered his severity, his naturalness, and then his true
eloquence, and the resources he had at command for meeting with
appropriate words the circumstances of the moment, overcame those who
were least likely to be overcome. A friend of mine, a Protestant, a man
of practised intellect and mature mind, told me to my surprise that, at
one of the Pope's receptions at the Vatican, he was so touched by the
discourse made by His Holiness to his visitors, that he burst into
tears. And this was the experience of hundreds; how could they think ill
of him or of his children when his very look and voice were so ethical,
so eloquent, so persuasive?' [Note 4]

It was doubtless largely the feeling which Pius IX. inspired which
made the inopportunist Bishops decline to record their votes against the
decree of Infallibility at the final public session held in the Pope's
presence. At the General Congregation of July 13, at which the
definition was informally passed, eighty-eight Bishops voted non
placet, and sixty-two placet juxta modum (that is, were in
favour of modifications in the definition). They then left Rome after
addressing to the Pontiff the following letter: {303}

'Most Blessed Father,—In the General Congregation held on the 13th
inst. we gave our votes on the Schemata of the first Dogmatic
Constitution concerning the Church of Christ.

'Your Holiness is aware that 88 Fathers, urged by conscience and love
of Holy Church, gave their vote in the words "non placet";
62 in the words "placet juxta modum"; finally about 70
were absent and gave no vote.

'Others returned to their dioceses on account of illness or more
serious reasons.

'Thus our votes are known to your Holiness and manifest to the whole
world, and it is notorious how many bishops agree with us, and with the
manner in which we have discharged the office and duty laid upon us.

'Nothing has happened since to change our opinion, nay rather there
have been many and very serious events of a nature to confirm us in it.

'We therefore declare that we renew and confirm the votes already
given.

'Confirming therefore our votes by this present document, we have
decided to ask leave of absence from the public session on the 18th
inst.

'For the filial piety and reverence which very recently brought our
representatives to the feet of your Holiness do not allow us in a cause
so closely concerning your Holiness to say "non placet" openly
and to the face of the Father.

'Moreover, the votes to be given in Solemn Session would only repeat
those already delivered in General Congregation. We return, therefore,
without delay to our flocks, to whom, after so long an absence, the
apprehensions of war and their most urgent spiritual wants render us
necessary to the utmost of our power, grieving as we do, that in the
present gloomy state of public affairs we shall find the faithful
troubled in conscience and no longer at peace with one another.

'Meanwhile, with our whole heart, we commend the Church of God and
your Holiness, to whom we avow our unaltered faith and obedience, to the
grace and protection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are your
'Most devoted and obedient.'

The appointed day arrived—July 18—and the definition was solemnly
passed in presence of the Pontiff. Mr. Mozley, who was a witness of the
scene, has left a graphic account of it [Note
5]: {304}

'Let me begin with the vigil of the fête. It thundered and lightened
all night, and it rained in the morning. When I went down to St. Peter's
on December 8 last, the very doors of Heaven seemed to have been opened,
and we were nearly washed out of our carriages. Yesterday, too, instead
of a bright Roman sky and brilliant, burning sun, we had what may be
called the storm of the season. Thus, the opening and the closing of the
Council—the closing, at least, for the present—were marked by a
violent revolution of the elements. The doors were not opened before
half past 7 o'clock, and as I drove down at that hour the streets were
comparatively empty. A solitary cab or two were rambling in the same
direction—a few priests and students were hurrying on through the
rain, and the gallant Guards, who let us pass unheeded, sat indolently
on their horses, having no occasion to make a display ...

'A double line of troops was soon formed, and between them, steadily
or jauntily as the case might be, walked the Fathers, each going to the
Hall, and taking his seat as he arrived. The laity, for whom all the
blessings of the day were specially designed, looked over the shoulders
of the soldiers to observe the bishops ... Many of the seats of the
Fathers were vacant, certainly nearly 250, 130 or 140 prelates having
absented themselves only for the day ...

'His Holiness, I am told by his friends, on entering, felt agitated,
and trembled when he knelt to say his prayers, but this passed off, his
voice was as firm and as clear as I have ever heard it, and his
appearance became bright and cheerful. The Mass was short, giving
promise of an early closing, and then came those beautiful hymns of the
Roman Catholic Church, sung at intervals, and never sung more
effectively. First the Litany of the Saints was chanted by the choir,
taken up by the Fathers, and carried as it were out of the Hall until it
was lifted on high by the swelling voices of several thousands of
persons who clustered round the tomb of St. Peter. So it was with the Veni
Creator. Apart from the essentially sweet and plaintive character of
the music, the body of sound satisfied all one's desires, giving the
assurance of something like sincerity and depth of feeling.

'Now there was a lull, broken at last by the shrill voice of the
Secretary reading the Dogma. The real business of the day had commenced,
and the crowd about the door and around the baldacchino became more
dense ... The reading of the Dogma was followed by the roll-call of the
Fathers, {305} and Placet after Placet followed, though
not in very quick succession. They were uttered in louder and bolder
tones than on former occasions, either that the echo was greater from
the comparative emptiness of the church or that the Fathers were pleased
at being shorn, and amid their utterances there was a loud peal of
thunder.

'The storm which had been threatening all the morning burst now with
the utmost violence, and to many a superstitious mind might have
conveyed the idea that it was the expression of Divine wrath, as
"no doubt it will be interpreted by numbers," said one officer
of the Palatine Guard. And so the Placets of the Fathers
struggled through the storm, while the thunder pealed above and the
lightning flashed in at every window and down through the dome and every
smaller cupola, dividing if not absorbing the attention of the crowd. Placet,
shouted his Eminence or his Grace, and a loud clap of thunder followed
in response, and then the lightning darted about the baldacchino and
every part of the church and Conciliar Hall, as if announcing the
response. So it continued for nearly one hour and a half, during which
time the roll was being called, and a more effective scene I never
witnessed. Had all the decorators and all the getters-up of ceremonies
in Rome been employed, nothing approaching to the solemn splendour of
that storm could have been prepared, and never will those who saw it and
felt it forget the promulgation of the first Dogma of the Church.

'The façade of the Hall had not been removed as on former
occasions, only the great door was opened, so that it could be scarcely
called an open Session, and people could get a glimpse of what was going
on only by struggling fiercely and peering over one another's shoulders,
or by standing at a distance and looking through a glass. I chose this
last and better part. The storm was at its height when the result of the
voting was taken up to the Pope, and the darkness was so thick that a
huge taper was necessarily brought and placed by his side as he read the
words, "Nosque, sacro approbante Concillo, illa ita decernimus,
statuimus atque sancimus ut lecta sunt." And again the lightning
flickered around the Hall, and the thunder pealed.

'I was standing at this moment in the south transept trying to
penetrate the darkness which surrounded the Pope, when the sound as of a
mighty rushing something, I could not tell what, caused me to start
violently, and look about me and above me. It might be a storm of hail.
Such for {306} an instant was my impression; and it grew and swelled,
and then the whole mystery was revealed by a cloud of white
handkerchiefs waving before me. The signal had been given by the Fathers
themselves with clapping of hands. This was my imaginary hailstorm; and
it was taken up by the crowd outside the Hall, and so the storm grew in
violence until at length it came to where I stood; Viva il Papa
Infallibile! Viva il trionfo dei Cattolici! shouted the zealots ...
But again the storm rose with greater violence than before, and I
thought that, according to English custom, we were to have three times
three.

'The Te Deum and the Benedictions, however, put a stop to it;
the entire crowd fell on their knees as I have never seen a crowd do
before in St. Peter's, and the Pope blessed them in those clear sweet
tones distinguishable among a thousand. A third and fainter attempt was
made to get up another cheer, but it died away, and then priests,
priestlings, monks and holy women, rushed down the nave to get,
perchance, another peep at the Pope as he passed though the chapels, but
the doors were closed.

'Thus closed the Session of the Ecumenical Vatican Council for the
present, not prorogued nor suspended, to meet again on November 11.'

The arguments of the Bishops of the minority had one all-important
result. In the proceedings of the Council published in the seventh
volume of the Jesuit 'Collectio Lacensis' we see that they pressed for
words absolutely precluding the view of extremists, that Papal
Infallibility meant a direct revelation to the Pope, or endowed him with
such absolute power as to warrant his dispensing with intercourse with
the Church in its exercise. A historical introduction to the definition
was accordingly written by the learned theologians, Fathers Franzelin
and Kleutgen.

It was to show 'in what manner the Roman Pontiffs had ever been
accustomed to exercise the magisterium of faith in the Church,'
and to prevent the fear lest 'the Roman Pontiff could proceed (procedere
possit) in judging of matters of faith without counsel,
deliberation, and the use of scientific means.' This introduction formed
the basis of what was ultimately passed at the public session of the
Fathers on July 18, although the text of Franzelin and Kleutgen was not
entirely approved. {307}

The same point was emphasised again in one of the annotations to the
first draft of the new formula, proposed on June 8, which formed the
basis of further modifications. 'It seemed useful,' we read in this
annotation, 'to insert in the Chapter some things adapted to the right
understanding of the dogma, namely, that the Supreme Pontiff does not
perform his duty as teacher without intercourse and union (sine
commercio et unione) with the Church.' [Note
6]

In the historical introduction, as finally published, the safeguard
urged as necessary in this connection was thus expressed: 'The Roman
Pontiffs, as the state of things and times has made advisable, at one
time calling Ecumenical Councils or finding out the opinion of the
Church dispersed through the world, at another by means of particular
Synods, at another using other means of assistance which Divine
Providence supplied, have defined those things to be held which by God's
aid they had known to be in agreement with sacred Scripture and the
Apostolic traditions, for the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors
of Peter, not that by His revelation they should disclose new doctrines,
but that by His assistentia they might preserve inviolate, and
expound faithfully, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by
the Apostles.'

The exaggerations of M. Veuillot were thus definitely rejected by the
Fathers. But Newman did not at first know this, and, having latterly
despaired of a moderate definition, he had fixed his hopes on the dogma
not being defined at all. A definition corresponding to the views set
forth in M. Veulilot's writings, or Cardinal Antonelli's reported
explanations, was unthinkable as an obligatory dogmatic formula. He
would not, he said, believe that the definition would be made until it
was un fait accompli. When the news first reached him that it had
been passed, with no particulars as to its scope, the blow was, as those
who knew him best have told the present writer, a stunning one. But when
he saw its actual text Newman's fears were allayed. 'I saw the new
definition yesterday,' he wrote to a friend, 'and am pleased at its
moderation,—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at
all.' {308}

So far, indeed, as doctrine was concerned, as he said to many
correspondents, no more was defined than he himself had always held. The
old Ultramontanism of which Archbishop Sibour and Montalembert had been
staunch defenders became a doctrine of faith. The Ultramontanism of the Univers
received no countenance in the text of the definition.

Nevertheless, as careful readers of the 'Letter to the Duke of
Norfolk' already know, Newman did not regard the truth of the doctrine
defined as being by any means the sole question at issue. The tendency
towards excessive centralisation which he deplored was not a matter of
doctrine, but of policy. And his letters show that he had great anxiety
lest the passing of the definition should actually increase this
tendency. Moreover, his indignation against some of the leading
promoters of the decree was in no way abated. In the very month in which
the definition was passed—on July 27—he wrote thus to Sister Maria
Pia:

'Our good God is trying all of us with disappointment and sorrow just
now; I allude to what has taken place at Rome—who of us would not have
rejoiced if the Fathers of the Council had one and all felt it their
duty to assent to the Infallibility of the Holy Father—? but a gloom
falls upon one, when it is decreed with so very large a number of
dissentient voices. It looks as if our Great Lord were in some way
displeased at us. Indeed the look of public matters generally is very
threatening, and we need the prayers of all holy souls and all good nuns
to avert the evils which seem coming upon the earth.'

Though accepting the definition at once himself, he did not at first
feel justified in speaking of it publicly as de fide until the
Council should be terminated. He wrote to Mrs. Froude as follows on
August 8:

'It is too soon to give an opinion about the definition. I want to
know what the Bishops of the minority say on the subject, and what they
mean to do. As I have ever believed as much as the definition says, I
have a difficulty in putting myself into the position of mind of those
who have not. As far as I see, no one is bound to believe it at this
moment, certainly not till the end of the Council. This I hold in spite
of Dr. Manning. At the same time, since the Pope has pronounced the
definition, I think it safer to accept it at {309} once. I very much
doubt if at this moment—before the end of the Council, I could get
myself publicly to say it was de fide, whatever came of it—though
I believe the doctrine itself.

'I think it is not usual, to promulgate a dogma till the end of a
Council, as far as I know—and next, this has been carried under such
very special circumstances. I look for the Council to right itself in
some way before it ends. It looks like a house divided against itself,
which is a great scandal.

'And now you have my whole mind. I rule my own conduct by what is
safer, which in matters of faith is a true principle of theology,—but
(as at present advised, in my present state of knowledge or
ignorance, till there are further acts of the Church) I cannot pronounce
categorically that the doctrine is de fide.
'Ever yours affectionately,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.' [Note
7]

'P.S.—You need not believe anything more personal or inherent in
the Pope than you say.

'P.S.—[on another sheet] My postscript to the first sheet is hardly
intelligible.

'The Pope is infallible in actu, not in habitu—in his
particular pronouncements ex Cathedra, not in his state of
illumination, as an Apostle might be, which would be inspiration. I am
told some wicked men, not content with their hitherto cruel conduct, are
trying to bring in this doctrine of inherent infallibility, of which
there is not a hint in the definition. Perhaps they would like to go on
to call him a Vice-God, as some one actually did, or sole God to us.
Unless my informant was mad, I heard lately of some one (English or
Irish) who said that now we ought not to pray to God at all, but only to
the Blessed Virgin—God preserve us, if we have such madmen among us,
with their lighted brands.'

The evil consequences which he feared from the definition were two.
It is true that the dogma professed to declare that theoretically the
Papacy had received no addition of power. The infallibility ascribed to
Pius IX. in his ex cathedra utterances had belonged also to St.
Peter and St. Gregory the Great. Yet the act of the Council would be
likely, he {310} feared in the first place, to lead in practice to
increased centralisation,—to the predominance of the new
Ultramontanism of M. Louis Veulliot and W. G. Ward. In the second place,
he felt that in this case, as with the decree on Inspiration, the
difficulties which had to be met had not been adequately anticipated,
owing partly to the rapidity and secrecy of the proceedings of the
Council, and that the argumentative position of Catholic apologists
would be in consequence for the time greatly embarrassed.

That evil results should follow on valid and true definitions,
however, was no novelty in Church history. Confusion had followed former
Councils, and might well follow the Vatican Council.

Newman's view as to the danger of increased centralisation is shown
in the following letter to Mr. O'Neill Daunt, who had written for
further advice respecting the friend already referred to whose faith in
the Church had been shaken:

'The Oratory: August 7th, 1870.
'My dear Mr. Daunt,—I agree with you that the wording of the Dogma has
nothing very difficult in it. It expresses what, as an opinion, I have
ever held myself with a host of other Catholics. But that does not
reconcile me to imposing it upon others, and I do not see why a man who
denied it might not be as good a Catholic as the man who held it [Note
8]. And it is a new and most serious precedent in the Church that a
dogma de fide should be passed without definite and urgent
cause. This to my mind is the serious part of the matter. You put an
enormous power into the hands of one man, without check, and at the very
time, by your act, you declare that he may use it without special
occasion.

'However, God will provide. We must recollect, there has seldom been
a Council without great confusion after it,—so it was even with the
first,—so it was with third, fourth, and fifth,—and [the] sixth
which condemned Pope Honorius. The difference between those instances
and this being, that now we have brought it on ourselves without visible
necessity.

'The great difficulty in the painful case you write about is, that
when the imagination gets excited on a point, it is {311} next to
impossible by any show of arguments, however sound, to meet the evil. I
think it may safely be said to your friend, that the greater part of the
Church has long thought that the Pope has the power which he and the
Bishops of the majority have declared is his; and that, if the
Church is the work and ordinance of God, we must have a little faith in
Him and be assured that He will provide that there is no abuse of the
Pope's power. Your friend must not assume, before the event, that
his power will be abused. Perhaps you ought not to urge her too
strongly,—if left to herself, your reasons may tell on her after a
while, though they seem to fail at the moment.
'Most sincerely yours,
JOHN H. NEWMAN.'

The second evil consequence which Newman feared from the definition
is referred to in a letter written two years later to Dr. Northcote. Dr.
Northcote had reopened the discussion of the possibility of a Catholic
College at Oxford. Newman now questioned its practicability. The Vatican
Council had by its decrees on Scripture and on Papal Infallibility
raised, he held, a new platform of dogma which could not be defended
until theologians had worked out a coherent view on their relations with
contemporary controversy. Previously to the Council, though he had
wished rather for an Oratory than for a College as the centre of
Catholic influence on the University, he had desired some centre
of influence. Now he considered its desirableness for the time very
doubtful.

'Though I could not advocate,' he wrote on April 7, 1872, 'hitherto I
should have been quite able to acquiesce in any plan for a Catholic
College at Oxford, and that, on the reasons you so lucidly and
powerfully draw out. I should have been able till lately, but I
confess I am in great doubt just now.

'And for this reason:—the antagonism between the Catholic Church
and Oxford has become far more direct and intense during the last two
years. From all I read and hear it seems to me that the Anglican Church
and the University are almost or quite in a whirlpool of unbelief, even
if they be as yet at some distance from the gulf and its abyss. On the
other hand there are the decrees of the Vatican Council. {312}

'The two main instruments of infidelity just now are physical science
and history; physical science is used against Scripture, and history
against dogma; the Vatican Council by its decrees about the inspiration
of Scripture and the Infallibility of the Pope has simply thrown down
the gauntlet to the science and the historical research of the day.

'You will understand what I mean without my giving instances. The
instance which has last come before me is Professor Owen's attack on the
Bishop of Ely in the February Number of Fraser.

'In former times it was by the collision of Catholic intellect with
Catholic intellect that the meaning and the limit of dogmatic decrees
were determined; but there has been no intellectual scrutiny, no
controversies as yet over the Vatican definitions, and their sense will
have to be wrought out not in friendly controversy, but in a mortal
fight at Oxford, in the presence of Catholics and Protestants, between
Protestant Professors and Tutors and a Catholic College. I do not see
how this conflict is to be avoided if we go to Oxford. Ought we to go
before we are armed? Till two years ago, Trent was the last Council—and
our theologians during a long 300 years had prepared us for the fight—now
we are new born children, the birth of the Vatican Council, and we are
going to war without strength and without arms. We do not know what
exactly we hold—what we may grant, what we must maintain. A man who
historically defends the Pope's infallibility must almost originate a
polemic—can he do so, as being an individual, without many mistakes?
but he makes them on the stage of a great theatre.' [Note
9]

Notes

1. It is to be observed that in writing to Anglican friends he
emphasised the good which the Council was likely to effect. He wrote
thus to J. R. Bloxam:

'The Oratory: Feb. 22, 1870.
'My dear Bloxam,—My best thanks for your very affectionate letter. I
shall rejoice to find you in this neighbourhood, and I hope it will be
when the leaves are out that I may show you our Retreat at Rednal, as
you have shown me yours at Beeding. There is but one drawback. I wish
you could obliterate it, that at length, at length Birnam Wood would
come to Dunsinane.

'As to this Council, about facts, I know little more than you
do, but as to my expectations, I think untold good will come of it—first,
as is obvious, in bringing into personal acquaintance men from the most
distant parts. The moral power of the Church (of Rome) will be almost
squared by this fact alone—next each part will know the state of
things in other parts of Christendom; and the minds of all the Prelates
will be enlarged as well as their hearts. They will learn sympathy and
reliance on each other. Further, the authorities at Rome will learn a
great deal which they did not know of, and since the Italian
apprehension is most imaginative and vivid, this will be a wonderful
gain. It must have a great influence on the election of the next Pope,
when that takes place. Then further the religious influence of so great
an occasion, of so rare and wonderful a situation, of such a realization
of things unseen, must, through God's mercy, leave a permanent deep
impression on the minds of all assembled. Nor can I believe that so
awful a visitation, in the supernatural order, as a renewal of the day
of Pentecost, when it is granted to them, will not make them all new men
for the rest of their lives.

'They have come to Rome with antagonistic feelings, they will depart
in the peace of God. I don't think much will come of the movement for
Papal Infallibility, though something very mild may be passed.
Ever yours affectionately,
(Signed) JOHN H. NEWMAN.

'P.S. You must not suppose from anything I have said that I do not
sympathize with the Bishop of Orleans; for I do.'Return to text

2. 'The text of Dupanloup's remarks is given in W.
G. Ward and the Catholic Revival, pp. 256 seq.Return to text

3. In the Appendix, at pp. 552 seq., will
be found some further letters illustrating Newman's state of mind during
the months preceding the definition of Papal Infallibility, and one
letter on the fall of Louis Napoleon in August 1870.Return to text